LAVA 1.0 Content Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 Hi, I've written a LabVIEW VI library that I'd like to release for the LabVIEW community under an open source license. The license should be such that it allows LabVIEW community to use the library in their software without forcing the software to any particular license. However the modifications and additions to the library itself should stay open source. The license should also prohibit open source developers from adding patented technology to the library, or if they do, they need to release the patent rights to the open source community as well. This requirement must be there since patent laws override copyrights if they are in disagreement and this way malicious open source developers could take open source package into their posession. I've though of options. GPL is out of the questions since it forces any software that uses the library to become GPL. LGPL is also out of the option since it doesn't allow statically linking the library to the binary without the binary also becoming LGPL software. Many older licenses don't also protect agains this patent issue, only quite recent open source licenses take into accout the threat that pantenting of technology used in opens source library may be. BSD licenses are not an option since they allow other parties to close the source of the library. We don't want other parties such as NI to close source of our library and start selling it as a LabVIEW toolbox for oly $999. The library must stay open or if some party wants to benefit from a closed source library, our company can then sell this party a commercial license. So what are the options. I've been thinking of Common Public License, which seems to meet these conditions. Are there other common alternatives. Or should LAVA/OpenG release their own license. I know OpenG is moving to BSD license but that would be agains our company open source strategy in this issue. -jimi- Quote Link to comment
bsvingen Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 The license should also prohibit open source developers from adding patented technology to the library, or if they do, they need to release the patent rights to the open source community as well. This requirement must be there since patent laws override copyrights if they are in disagreement and this way malicious open source developers could take open source package into their posession. Can't you just issue licenses individually? That way NI (for instance) can never obtain a valid license unless you exclusively send them one. I don't think you can stop others from doing derivative work no matter what, since this won't effect the original work in any way regarding copyright (unless the derivative work is considered only a copy or plagiate). Patents are very different, you cannot make a derivative work using other patents as building blocks unless you have obtained a legal right to use those patents in your work. Quote Link to comment
LAVA 1.0 Content Posted October 10, 2006 Author Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 Can't you just issue licenses individually? No, we especially want to release the library under open source license so that the community can further develop it and this further development would also benefir the community and not only ourselves. Quote Link to comment
Mike Ashe Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 I hope you find a license model you are satisfied with. As a last resort, however, you could always write your own and submit it to The Open Source Initiative as they serve as a source for many "approved" open source licenses. Remember also that you do not have to have someone else's approval. You are free to license any way you want. I would suspect taht one of the OSI versions are suitable or close enough. Good luck. Quote Link to comment
bsvingen Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 Remember also that you do not have to have someone else's approval. You are free to license any way you want. Far from it. Or more precisely, you are of course free to do it, but you risk the chance that the license is worth nothing when tested in court. If something in the license can be regarded as being in opposition to common practice or the wording in the law, it will be worth nothing. At least you must have a laywer to look through it, and approve it. Quote Link to comment
LAVA 1.0 Content Posted October 10, 2006 Author Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 Far from it. Or more precisely, you are of course free to do it, but you risk the chance that the license is worth nothing when tested in court. I'd like to stick with one of the existing licenses if possible. An open source license of a small company may frighten customers and developers. It's easier to have a reputation of a trusted third party behind the license. When I was working for a company of 6000 empolyees, we had many very talented lawers and even still they had hard time taking everything into account when we were writing contracts with other parties. To wire an open source license that would be good enough, one needs to hire a lawer specialized in the field if one wants to write a good license from scratch. It's a bit same thing than with patents. If you hire patent office that is not specialized to the field you apply the patent for, the patent will not be worth anything in the court. I'll go trough the main open source licenses and I'll report you which one I chose and for what reasons. I hope this will encourage the other companies and institutions in LabVIEW community to follow the example and select the same license model. It's easies for the developers if all the libraries they use are of the same open source license. GPL is especially nasty since it only allows other GPL compilant licenses to be used in the same project. I'm not certain if I will choose a GPL compilant license or not. I think Eclipse license is GPL compilant and is quite close to what I need but I've to see. Quote Link to comment
LAVA 1.0 Content Posted October 10, 2006 Author Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 Sorry, wrong topic. I have erased contents of this post. Quote Link to comment
crelf Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 [quote name='Lars-G Quote Link to comment
LAVA 1.0 Content Posted October 10, 2006 Author Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 Irrespective - you should put that post you just deleted somewhere else for us to discuss. For example, the document says "Software costs virtually nothing to manufacture" - a point that I'm sure will be well debated here It's at The Care and Feeding of FOSS /Lars-G Quote Link to comment
Jacemdom Posted October 11, 2006 Report Share Posted October 11, 2006 Are there other common alternatives. -jimi- instead of maybe Wikipedia definition used http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/ and http://www.droppingknowledge.org/bin/home/home.page i did not research to see if it was used a lot or read trough the entire licence to see if it fits your needs axactly. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.